Army Raises Recruitment Age-Again

RockRambler can you answer this question?

 

KenH I just crack myself up...Enoch,OldRegular,Enoch,OldRegular,Enoch..perhaps the same lemming jumping off the same ice cliff.

They seem to blur and morph into one when I read their posts.

 

It's a fair imitation. </font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't.

Failure to defend yourself (war) doesn't mean the enemy will stop attacking.

If a kid gets beaten by a bully every day on the way to school, does he have "peace" because he doesn't fight back? NO. He has peace when he convinces the bully that the costs are too high.

 

Prior combat is not prerequisite to having a sound view of when war should and shouldn't be committed to. Neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR had military experience.

Sometimes war is necessary to secure the peace. Only an idiot thinks we can not fight the Islamic terrorists and have peace now or in the future. They have been at war with us since Carter.

BTW, I gave my 7 years in the Reserves and would have gone to Gulf War I in spite of my suspicions about Bush 1 if I had been called up. My dad fought in a meaningless liberal war in Korea. That Dem fired a general for daring to propose that we attempt to win the war and free a people that have subsequently been subjected to 50 years of horrid abuse... yeah, that's the kind of "peace" liberals support.

[ January 19, 2006, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

What an absurd comparison.

LBJ engaged in a war where he tied the military's hands and attempted to micromanage the war from Washington. Bush has given the theater commanders a mission and secured the resources they've asked for.

LBJ fought a war where the goal was stalemate. At any point, that war could have been concluded by a deliberate offensive toward Hanoi that forced the N Vietnamese to put their army in front of ours... like what Grant did to Lee to end the Civil War.

Bush's commanders won the war in a matter of weeks. They are now conducting operations against foreign criminals... not soldiers, not primarily Iraqi nationals. The criminal casualties are several times higher than ours. They are engaged in a battle that can only be won with the help of liberal naysayers like YOU.

 

I feel that if one supports a war, if they are of enlistment age, that they should enlist if they truly support the war. </font>[/QUOTE]Does this mean that everyone who supports the preaching of the Gospel should become pastors? Your "if you support it, you should do it" mentality falls on its face in many instances and circumstances.

 

I feel that if one supports a war, if they are of enlistment age, that they should enlist if they truly support the war. </font>[/QUOTE]What about women? Should women support the war if they don't enlist and/or don't believe that women should be in combat?

 

I would think that any Christian preaches the gospel by the life they lead. </font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I asked. I said pastor ...you know, bishop/elder/overseer.

 

I suspect that my sons would enlist... but they're only 11 and 12. Do you want them RR to satisfy your blood lust for my daring to disagree with you about this action?

 

Because it would be irresponsible to leave my family at this time with a newborn, and put that all onto my wife's shoulders.

 

You know what's kind of interesting about all this? You'd think that we'd just experienced a Gettysburg or something from the drama these anti-war folks engage in.

I honor each sacrifice and wouldn't diminish the tragedy of even one casualty... but historically speaking, this operation has very successfully minimized US casualties.

Some Civil War battles saw the whole population of able bodied men from some towns wiped out in a day... now that would be worthy of the cries of woe we hear now from the naysayers... and each of those Civil War casualties were the direct result of the "war" resolve and leadership of a man who never served in the military.

 

Why not? You aren't satisfied that someone has the moral latitude to support this war unless they've been in war themselves or are ready to make a sacrific in blood.

 

There aren't any that are fit for service except one brother-in-law... and he got back from having his Guard unit deployed to Kosovo last year.

No there isn't. No more than recognizing the necessity of a local police force without joining up yourself... even though we all know that policemen face more danger than we do.

If these "hypocrites" you imagine were told they were needed, I suspect that many of them would go. I am 41. If they get down to needing an old fat guy... then I'll get in line. Otherwise, I already offered myself for the military's disposal for 7 years... it isn't my fault they didn't send me to combat nor do I feel guilty that they didn't while supporting the decision to send others.

Certainly those who are enlisting now are under no delusions about the military being a social program like they were before... especially before the first Gulf action. Moreover, it is quite likely that some are joining specifically because they do believe in what we are doing.

In addition to the Pastor question, what about missionaries. Isn't it hypocritical of you to support missionaries... knowing the dangers they face... but not volunteering yourself?

 

I feel that if one supports a war, if they are of enlistment age, that they should enlist if they truly support the war. </font>[/QUOTE]RockRambler – I suspected this was your way of thinking. Thank you for being bold enough to actually state it. However I find this type of thinking a bit removed from realism.

I thank your children for the service to our country; it is greatly appreciated and highly respected.

Before I assume your political views since I am not familiar with you as a poster let me ask…Do you support the war?